Tuesday, July 18, 2017

O & I PII

The last topic under "Observations and Intent" was far too important for my usual short post, so here is part II:

Examining further certain premises in the aforementioned thesis found at POM, let's begin with the argument that "the power of the world adversarial force has developed all the world religions and are still doing so in the modern world."

Obviously, we need to explore further just what this World Adversarial Force (WAF) is. But as we examine Mr. Collins' blog more closely, it appears to resemble elements of an ancient dynastic order like the Illuminati (though the usual obsessive reference to ritualism and satanism are refreshingly absent).

The material is more considered and readable than typical NWO / Illuminati / Satanic / Jew / Freemason / Cult conspiracy diatribe. And that said, if we view this collective a bit more metaphorically - perhaps more objectively - we can land somewhere in the land of "the powers that be" with perhaps a better historical understanding of the part which Middle Eastern religions have played in past "adversarial conflicts".

There is some reference also to the "adversarial nature of the material world" ... and so with this we are given a more spiritual dimension of this division of adversaries.

Crediting the WAF with "developing" past and present religions may border on heresy for the many who believe that their religion was developed out of an actual encounter with God (or a related Deity). But the idea that organized religion is a product of the "ruling class" used to keep the "working class" under control is far from original, and while disturbing for some, quite logical to others.

So with this world view as a lens through which to view the cultural demographic isolation of Russia as a strategic move to prevent the formation of past alliances or coalitions, we are left with the China question.

But before we go there, let us give credit where due. The "intent" of the strategy makes a great deal more sense now than just the "pacification of cultural identity". We may now move that outcome to the position of "side-bonus" and elevate the "dis-empowerment of Russia" to "prime objective". (And as such, I have added the POM blog to my Fake News offerings as a fitting hat-tip compliment).

According to Mr. Collins, the WAF sees Russia as an impediment to its introduction of the new global unit of account (based on a historical context of always being adversarial to its interests). And concomitantly, it views China as being wholly allegiant to its cause.

And yet, we have Russia and China cooperating in the development of "parallel systems" which can either compliment or compete against the "single system" of the WAF. And here we come to the fork in the road.

Does the WAF see the parallel system as being under its control - merely a subset of its over-arching framework? And if so, is it underestimating the pivotal role of China?

In my opinion, China holds the "best hand" in this game of chance. If China aligns with Russia, systemically, does the WAF really think it can crush this alliance economically? Where will Europe stake its future? Other countries? While historical context does frame the present, human interests (from self, to group, to country to region) seem to have a way of creating "strange bedfellows". Again, I do not think it is a foregone conclusion that Russia is the entity to surround and dis-empower.

Though China is certainly happy with that outcome.

Collins clearly assumes that the WAF has China "firmly indentured" to its system. Yet others conclude that China holds the key to eventually rendering that system irrelevant to its interests. Should China invoke the wrath of the WAF by not being as compliant as expected, where will the battle lines be drawn and to what extent economically, militarily and demographically?

Which way will the Middle East turn if China pivots? What permutation might arise from the WAFs demographic experiment?  Does an integrated Islamic Caliphate come to mind? Assumptions of the past may be unreliable in our nuclear age. And betrayal in human affairs is not confined to the personal level.

For myself, such predictability seems less and less reliable in our fractured world of competing interests. While there is less stability, there is less concentration of power into "the hand that gives".

Some will call Roacheforque a Marxist no doubt, but I believe the little people collectively hold so much more power than they can ever truly understand. And they can fit it all in their pockets as they press the right buttons on their desk tops.

This we learn ... from the flower of understanding.

No comments:

Post a Comment